Cognitive Readiness for Comprehensive...

Recherche et développementpour la défense Canada

Defence Research andDevelopment Canada Canada

Cognitive Readiness for Comprehensive Operations: Simulation-Based Training, Collaboration Methodology, and Technological Support

Daniel Lafond, Michel DuCharme, & Michel LizotteDRDC Valcartier, System of Systems Section

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

“When you are confronted by any complex social system with thingsabout it that you're dissatisfied with and anxious to fix, you cannot just step in and set about fixing with much hope of helping. This realization is one of the sore discouragements of our century...You cannot meddle with one part of a complex system from the outsidewithout the almost certain risk of setting off disastrous events that you hadn't counted on in other, remote parts. If you want to fixsomething you are first obliged to understand...the whole system...”

Lewis Thomas, 1974.

UnderstandingUnderstanding ComplexComplex SystemsSystems


Varying Degrees of Complexity

TRADOC Pamphlet 525-5-500 (2008)


Environmental Complexity

Concepts such as “Comprehensive approach”, “Effects based-approach to operations” and “Systems thinking” all stress the importance of a mindfulness of complex interrelations and integrated planning

Land Operations (B-GL-300-001/FP-001)

(St-Louis, 2009)


Adopt a comprehensive approach to problem solving that involves the holistic consideration, and, ideally, the coordination of all relevant players

Military forces will also have a hand in governance and development activities

leveraging the military, political, and economic instruments of a state’s power

Need for sustained efforts to develop practical tools and metrics capable of ensuring that the implementation and

performance of a comprehensive approach is optimized

Leslie, Gizewski and Rostek (2008)

JIMP-Enabled Land Force


Future Force Requirements

Increasingly required soldier proficiencies:

Adaptability/managing complexityTaking into account contingency, anticipating change and understanding interdependencies within systems

Higher order thinking and sound reasoningThinking creatively, making decisions, solving problems, planning, designing and executing solutions, often using technological tools

Prioritizing, planning, and managing resultsHigh levels of complexity require careful planning, managing and an ability to anticipate contingencies and avoid unexpected outcomes

From:Reshke (2009) - Toward Land Operations 2021, Chapter 2, p.34-35


Adaptive Dispersed OperationsJIMP-Enabled / Comprehensive Approach

Some of the key requirements:

- The willingness to consider 2nd and 3rd order effects in its planning process

- The adoption of a team approach to develop an integrated campaign plan

From:Gizewski & Rostek (2009), p.4-6Toward Land Operations 2021

- Augmented cognition

- Improved collaboration


Decision Making in Complex Situations

Counter-productive behaviors/attitudes(Dörner, 1996)

Insufficient goal / strategy elaboration- “Repair-shop” behavior

Insufficient formation of hypotheses about the structure of the system- neglecting side- and long-term effects

Insufficient ideas about the behaviour of the system in time- neglecting developmental tendencies

Tunnel vision (Miller, 1982)

A form of selective attention that contributes to inadequate problem formulation, partial solutions to complex problems and to the generation of even more intractable problems


Although decision making performance in complex situations improves with practice, it typically reaches a plateau well below potential (Yasarcan, 2010)

In a number of studies, a naïve do-nothing rule was found to give better results than most participants (e.g., Langley & Morecroft, 2004)

Such systems are said to display policy resistance, i.e., a tendency for interventions to be defeated by the response of the system to the intervention itself (Sterman, 2006)

Decision Making in Complex Situations


Complex Decision Making (CxDM)and Adaptability Training

International Workshop on Complex Decision Making and Adaptability (Washington, 16-18 June, 2010)

Co-chaired by DiGiovanni (OSD, Director Readiness and Training), Grisogono (DSTO), and DuCharme (DRDC)

High impact potential, but significant gap between researchand practice - need to start exploiting current knowledge

Implement ‘ready to be used’, mature/promising research on CxDMand adaptability into current military training and instruction programs


CxDM and Adaptability Training

Training in decision making and adaptability for operations in complex and dynamic situations (ARP10bp05):

PM: Michel DuCharme

Implement ‘ready to be used’, mature/promising research on CxDM and adaptability into three simulation-based training scenarios

Goal: Improve “cognitive readiness” of CF commanders and help them achieve an “adaptive stance”


Cognitive Readiness

“Possessing the psychological (mental) and sociological (social) knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to establish and maintain effective performance and mental wellbeing in the dynamic, complex, and unpredictable environments of military operations”

(Bolstad et al., 2006)


Adaptive Stance

“Awareness of the uncertainties and conjectures with a potential impact on key decisions, and an active search for information that could disprove current assumptions in these areas.”

“It encapsulates the essential characteristics of resistance to urge for closure and certainty, not being seduced by one's own ideas, appreciating that it is much more important to be prepared to be wrong in order to learn, than to always be right (and therefore either or both risk-averse or in denial) and conversely, being prepared to 'decriminalise' others being wrong.”

(Grisogono & Ryan, 2007)


Complex Decision MakingExperimental Platform (CODEM)

CODEM is a configurable simulation environment capable of generating turn-based decision making scenarios

Testbed for:

1) Cognitive testing (research and individual assessment)2) Assessment of support technologies and methods

The present project aims to extend the capabilities of CODEM to support training of individuals and teams for improved adaptability and decision making in complex and dynamic situations


CODEM Experimental Platform

Multiple versions

• Individual or collaborative version

• Human or artificial adversary

• With/without: Time-pressure, information uncertainty, structural knowledge (cause-effect relationships)

Example of counter-insurgency scenario


Counter-Insurgency Scenario

“You are coordinating a multinational effort to stabilize a failing state in the grips of a rising insurgency. Your mission is to return the host nation to a stable and self-sustaining condition. The operation will be considered a success if all situation indicators (except the mediating variable) are outside the RED zone. Your mission has failed if the allegiance of the local population falls to zero.

Your tour of command will last up to ten turns - although the campaign will not necessarily be over. International support to the coalition forces (and to the insurgents) is represented by action points. At the start of each turn, you can allocate action points to influence the state of affairs. Half of unspent action points carry over to the next turn.

This task is extremely challenging. It is highly advised to carefully consider the known cause-effect relations in the system and try to develop an effective long term strategy.”







R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D CanadaNo programming skill required, yet very flexible

Feedback options

Win/lose conditions

Game length

Language

Layout

Labels

Time pressure

Feedback loops

Opacity

Uncertainty

Range of values

Definitions

Variable names

Conditional effects

Effects can change over time as a function of the

situation

Time delays

Effects of interventions can be conditional and delayed

Resources each turn depend on situation

Dynamic resource allocation(unlike most SD models)

Players on the same side can share resources

Partial / approximate / false information can be provided

Unlimited number of players and teams

Unpredictable events influencing situation

(simple java code)

Occurrence at a preset moment or conditional


Occurrence at a preset moment or

conditional

Messages or queries


External hooks

CODEM can communicate with an outside source:

- To delegate control of an adversary (i.e., an AI algorithm)

- To let a machine learning algorithm play as the blue force

- Search for the best possible strategies using a genetic algorithm (e.g., Palisade’s Evolver software)


Three military scenarios developed using CODEM that implement known principles and methods to support cognitive training in complex decision making and adaptability for individuals and teams:

- Increasing degrees of complexity

- Time compression

- Outcome and process feedback

- Feedforward (tips on effective strategies)

- Contextualized feedback on behaviors (e.g., excessively quick decisions, poor information seeking)

- Best practice tutorial (e.g., Dörner, 1996)

Outline of Prototype Training


Scenario 1: Understanding and anticipating effects

- System is mostly transparent- Recognize/manage complexity- Domain: Arctic surveillance and rescue ops

Scenario 2: Learning/adapting as you go

- System is more opaque and uncertain- Develop an adaptive stance- Domain: Disaster response (e.g., Katrina, Haiti)

Scenario 3: Collaborative design and coordination

- Collaborative scenario (with human adversary)- Common and conflicting goals- Domain: JIMP in Africa

Outline of Prototype Training


Collaborative Sensemaking

A major challenge when attempting to undertake a comprehensive approach to operations (i.e., a whole of government approach) is that various actors need to align their efforts to reach their individual and common goals.

The actors need to carefully consider the repercussions of theiractions on their counterparts and, ideally, engage in collaborative sensemaking and resource sharing in order to reach the desired end-state more effectively.

“Collaborative sensemaking occurs when a group of people with diverse backgrounds engage in the process of making sense of information rich, complex and dynamic situations” (Umapathy, 2010)


Collaborative Operational Design

“A systemic understanding of all aspects of the battle space and linkages arising out of that battle space is required to allow for the intellectual flexibility to adapt to a highly agile adversary […] Operational Design is the foundation of Operational Art. Its pursuit informs the commander of the Operational problem and sets the theoretical underpinning and framework from which a Campaign Plan is created and conducted. The process of Operational Design has at its core, the aim of understanding the nature and form of an Operational problem such that a commander may best determine the critical path or way to achieving end state.”

(LCol Cummings, 2007)


Collaborative Understanding ofComplex Situations (12om)

PM: Michel Lizotte

• Study the understanding of complex situations by a team of experts (civil and military)

• Identify requirements for collaborative sensemaking through cognitive experimentation

• Develop a collaboration method with technological support to improve collaborative understanding of complex situations


Approach to civil-military collaboration in complex situations

- Achieve an integrative campaign design (Leslie, Gizewski, & Rostek, 2008)

- Develop a common « comprehension model » of the problem space, individual and shared goals and the solution space (Lizotte et al., 2009)

- Identify tools that facilitate collaborative understanding and problem framing (e.g., explicit representation)

- Identify methods that ensure effective sensemaking (e.g., avoid endless debate)

- Identify roles and phases that support this process and help avoid pitfalls in collaboration (e.g., groupthink)


COMPOEX: Conflict Modeling, Planning and Outcomes ExperimentationA toolbox for planning, modeling and option exploration

Two contractor teams led by BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin.

Allen, Corpac & Frisbie (2006)


The Malik MZSG Operations Room

Simulation software to allow the management team to think about possible future developments systematically, develop action strategies, and simulate scenarios.

A decision-making environment for managing complex systems


IMAGE: A Computer-Aided Cognition Capability for Understanding Complex Systems

Lizotte et al. (2009) DRDC Valcartier


1. Support for creating explicit representations

2. Support for co-existence of different representations

3. Support for developing shared representation

4. Support for creating representations using templates

5. Provide workspace for developing shared representations

6. Support for consensus building and reaching agreement

7. Support for facilitating and moderating interactions

Support requirements (Umapathy, 2010)


1. Knowledge construction

2. Problem/model development

3. Team consensus

4. Outcome evaluation and revision

Collaboration Stages (Letsky et al., 2007)


(Liang et al, 1995; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Argote & Ingram, 2000)

Transactive Memory Model


Data/Frame Model of Sensemaking(Klein et al., 2010)


Data/Frame Model of Sensemaking(Klein et al., 2010)


Behaviors that Enable Sensemaking (E)

• E1: Challenges assumptions or takes opposite view

• E2: Suggests alternatives

• E3: Displays self-questioning or doubt

• E4: Displays reliance on other team members

• E5: Reveals thought process aloud

• E6: Pays attention to others’ views

• E7: Openly shares info and opinions

• E8: Tells stories of past events or future possibilities

Behavioral Model of Team Sensemaking (Powers et al., 2010)


Behaviors that Inhibit Sensemaking (I)

• I1: Shows preference for formal process

• I2: Pushes for formal discussion

• I3: Rejects complex explanations

• I4: Affinity for like-minded thinkers

• I5: Attacks others’ contributions

• I6: Pushes for conclusions

• I7: Shows frustration overtly

• I8: Shows occasional disinterest

Behavioral Model of Team Sensemaking (Powers et al., 2010)


Soft Systems Methodology (Peter Checkland, 1981)- Seven stage approach to group problem

framing and solution generation

Syntegrity (Stafford Beer, 1994)- A form of non-hierarchical problem solving that can be used in a team of 10 to 42 people

Conflict Mapping (Paul Wehr, 1979)- Method to give both the interveners and the conflict parties a clearer understanding of the origins, nature, dynamics, and possibilities for resolution of conflict

Collaborative Sensemaking Methods


Diligence – the capacity to anticipate or detect surprises early (i.e., responsiveness)

Facileness – the capacity to quickly and easily switch from stable and routine activity to flexible and novel action (i.e., flexibility)

Fluidity – the capacity to operate effectively in chaotic situations where traditional order has collapsed (i.e., resilience)

Generativeness – the capacity to function as a learning organization, gaining knowledge from successes and failures as well as the experiences of others (i.e., adaptiveness)

Potential Metrics (Ericksen & Dyer 2004)


- Robustness (robust DM, see Chandresekaran, 2005)

- Flexibility

- Responsiveness

- Resilience

- Adaptiveness

- Innovation

Potential Metrics (Alberts & Hayes, 2004)

Date post:	04-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vunhi
View:	219 times
Download:	3 times

Cognitive Readiness for Comprehensive...

Documents